Crider v. Crider’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 437 So. 2d 1003 - Albright v. Albright · Sellers v. Sellers · 677 So. 2d 740 - Riley v. Doerner · 622 So. 2d 1264 - Ash v. Ash · 459 So. 2d 283 - Gallaspy v. Gallaspy
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is logical and reasonable that “application of both parties” exists when both parties consent to allowing the court to determine custody. The fact that the parties request that the court determine which parent is to receive “primary cus tody” does not alter this. The parties are allowing the court to determine what form of custody is in the best interest of the child. If joint custody is determined to be in the best interest of the child using court-specified factors, i.e., the Al-bright factors, the parties should not be able to prohibit this by the wording of the consent. It would be the same if the parties requested that the court determine which party will receive “all marital assets.” The chancellor has the responsibility to determine how to best distribute the assets according to court-specified factors (the Ferguson factors) and must not be bound by the wording of the consent to award all marital assets to one party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[W]hen parties consent in writing to the [chancery] court’s determination of custody, they are consenting and agreeing to that determination and this meets the statutory directive of “joint application” in [section] 93-5-24(2). This is the only interpretation that conforms to the primary directive of [Mississippi Code Annotated section] 93-5-24(1) [ (Rev.2004) ] that “custody shall be awarded as follows according to the best interests of the child.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]his is for the chancellor to determine as he or she is in the best position to evaluate the credibility, sincerity, capabilities[,] and intentions of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.